Debate over Intelligent Design Goes On After Court Ruling
Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005 Posted: 10:25:50AM EST
Tuesday’s ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case over the legality of intelligent design in public schools was analyzed by its main proponents and detractors. Although the ruling will be enforceable only in the local school district in Dover, Pa., the debate will continue.
The case involved parents who sued their local school district when it instituted a new policy that said evolutionary theory was not a fact, and that there were competing theories, including intelligent design (ID). While the ID theory was not taught in the classrooms, students were pointed to a book on the subject and encouraged to have an open mind.
Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court in Harrisburg, Pa. focused his ruling on the motivation behind some of the school board members in the district.
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," wrote Judge Jones.
"Any asserted secular purposes by the board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective," he added.
In his decision, Judge Jones said that while intelligent design should not be discussed in the science class, that should not stifle talk and discussion of the topic.
The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Eric Rothschild from the Pepper Hamilton law firm along with attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Pennsylvania emphasized that the Judge noted in his opinion that early drafts of the pro-intelligent design book that was suggested as reading material for students had references to creationism and creation science. He said the case had been a “complete victory.”
“…what we presented to the judge – and I think he found particularly compelling – is that intelligent design really makes the same arguments as creationism or creation science,” said Rothschild in the NewsHour television program.
In the case, Rothschild’s legal team presented the book “Of Pandas and People” as evidence that intelligent design was religiously motivated and that this case was essentially “nothing new except that creationists have put a new name on the same proposition.”
Defense Attorney Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Michigan-based Thomas More law Center, said that he would like to appeal, but that decision rests on the Dover school board. That doesn’t seem likely, however, since eight of the board members who defended their policy were voted out in November and replaced with people mostly opposed to intelligent design.
Thompson criticized the way in which the Establishment clause of the First amendment is being applied today, saying that it is “in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision.”
"The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted,” he said.
The attorney added that unless the views of the Supreme Court changed, similar results would be take place in the future.
